When a homebuyer or lender believes a surveyor’s report or valuation let them down, the courts do not simply ask whether the surveyor was wrong. They ask whether the work fell below the standard of a reasonably competent member of the profession. Answering that question requires evidence from another surveyor. As surveyor negligence expert witnesses, we review the original report, valuation or survey, examine what the surveyor saw or should have seen, and give an independent opinion on whether the work met the professional standard of the day.
Instructions come from claimants pursuing losses and from defendants and insurers resisting them. Common scenarios include:
Whichever side instructs us, the opinion we give is the same: our duty is to the court.
We start with the documents: the original report or valuation, the terms of engagement, site notes and photographs, and the guidance and standards in force at the time. We inspect the property where access is possible, so we can compare what was reported with what exists. We then consider what a reasonably competent surveyor, carrying out that type of instruction on that date, would have observed, investigated and reported. Our analysis distinguishes carefully between a defensible professional judgement and a failure no competent surveyor should have made.
The deliverable is a written expert report setting out the material reviewed, our inspection findings, the professional standards and guidance applicable at the time, and a reasoned opinion on whether the original work fell below the required standard. Where it did, we address causation issues within our expertise, such as what a competent report would have said and, where instructed, the difference in value that results. The report complies with CPR Part 35 and its Practice Direction, and includes the expert’s declaration and statement of truth.
Costs vary with the shape of the case rather than following a set scale. The key factors are the size of the documentary bundle, whether a site inspection and retrospective valuation are needed, the number of allegations to be addressed, whether we act for one party or as single joint expert, and the prospect of joint expert meetings and trial attendance. A preliminary screening opinion is a modest exercise; a full report in a defended claim is more substantial. We agree the fee basis with your solicitors before starting.
Only a practitioner from the same profession can credibly say what a reasonably competent surveyor would have done. Our experts are RICS-qualified chartered surveyors in active practice, familiar with the inspection standards, valuation guidance and reporting conventions against which the original work must be judged. Because our overriding duty under CPR Part 35 is to the court, our conclusions do not bend to the instructing party’s preferred outcome. Courts, insurers and opposing counsel recognise the difference, and that recognition is what makes the evidence effective.
Professional negligence litigation is expensive, and not every disappointing survey amounts to negligence. Before proceedings are issued, we can provide a preliminary view on whether the original work appears to have fallen below the competent standard and whether the losses claimed plausibly flow from it. This early screening, often based on the papers and a single inspection, helps claimants avoid unmeritorious claims and helps defendants and insurers decide quickly whether to settle or resist. Many of our instructions across London begin exactly this way.
If you are weighing a claim against a surveyor, or defending one, an early independent opinion is the soundest first step. Contact Notting Hill Surveyors in confidence to discuss the case, check conflicts and obtain a fee proposal; we act for claimants, defendants, insurers and as single joint expert across London and beyond.